The main problem IS the population explosion. All those people eat a lot of cows (who also fart a lot) and need to cut down rainforest for grazing. I think you underestimate our ability to screw things up royally.
Just for fun, try this exercise, see how many earths we would need for sustainability if everyone lived like us: http://www.myfootprint.org/
It has been proven that there have been natural warming and cooling cycles during the Earth's 5 billion (?) year history. The problem I have with folks who claim the latest warming trend is all part of a natural cycle is this:
During the history of man on Earth, the amount of manmade greenhouse gases that's been added to the atmosphere is nothing compared to what's been added to to the atmosphere during the past 100 years or so from manmade activities such as manufacturing, vehicles, heating and cooling our buildings, using electricity, methane emissions from livestock (I would argue that this is "manmade" due to our insatiable appetite for meat), and anything else you can think of.
I think it's foolish, naive, silly to think that we could have produced all these greenhouse gases without having a noticable impact on the global climate. The precautionary principle states "if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action." In this case, the "action" is continuing, unabated, our manmade activities that produce greenhouse gases.
Finally, I would say that any money spent on reducing energy consumption (i.e renewable energy, more efficient homes etc.) will be paid back many times through the savings. Wouldn't we all like to have little or no utility bills some day?
Bah - like any theory there will be strong arguments for both sides of it. Do I think we are experiencing global warming? Sure. Do I think humans are to cause for it? Some, but not nearly as much as others would like to think. Do I think it will be our demise? Absolutely not - I believe it is just a period in a cycle. In the mean time I'm going to go release some R12 into the atmosphere and burn some coal in my fireplace.
can only assume you're relating GW to hurricanes. sorry, but you are misinformed. hurricane experts that i've heard speak, agree that our current increased activity is no way related to GW, just a cycle. remember, i'm in favor of conservation, just not at the expense of new taxes and crippling our economy. please feel free to move to a wilderness home with no electricity and no car if you really support GW theories. not super educated, just a humble researcher.
You can assume that but you would be wrong. I'm relating one potential impact of global warming to try and gauge how strong your belief in your post is. What I was referring to wasn't related to the AMO, but to the increase in the percentage of more powerful hurricanes. Insurance companies aren't pulling out and demanding high rates because we're seeing the usual increase in number of storms associated with the AMO, they're doing this because our anthropogenic emissions are inducing high SSTs, which means we're more likely to see more powerful storms, not more storms compared to the average of where we are in the AMO. It doesn't matter of Florida gets hit by 10 CAT1or2s over the course of a hurricane season. The Gulf coast has taken and can take those storms. What matters are the odds that they'll get nailed by a CAT4or5, or that areas which used to be relatively safe will now get nailed. The percentage of CAT4and5 hurricanes has increased significantly over the past few decades. All I'm suggesting is you put your money where your post is. If anthropogenic emissions, most Carbon Dioxide, aren't responsible for the increase in the SSTs. We probably won't see more powerful hurricanes, and you'll stand to make a bundle. If your contention that anthropogenic emissions aren't causing the increase in SSTs is wrong, well, we'll probably continue to see an increase in the number of CAT4and5s, and you'll loose your shirt. All I'm saying is, put up or shut up...
We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
if you recall, i do support taking care of the environment. we must slow and eventually eliminate as much pollution as possible. the greatest idea behind GW is politics. it's ironic though, because the same politicians that push for green legislation consume incredible amounts of fuels and emit those greenhouse gases. let's go in a direction that allows our economy to continue to function and stop proliferation of taxes. as for the "me first" attitude--well, that goes way beyond GW and ploitics. your final point reminds me that darwin confessed on his death bed that he didn't find the missing link, just a new species of primate. evolution has been considered a constant for some time, and now it is fundamentally falling apart. now my sources tell me the next great anti-God explanation of life is that aliens brought us here. beam me up scotty!
not saying GW does not exist, just not convinced mankind acts alone in greenhouse gas emissions(see Telco's response). also question the political motives related to it. DON'T raise my taxes when the legislaters(tax increasers) are contributing(emitting) more than most!!!
The 2500 scientists (when is the last time 2500 scientists agreed on ANYTHING?!?) concluded that we are the major factor in global climate change. Did you read the report? Or did you learn everything you needed to know (wanted to hear) from telco?
2500 scientists will agree to anything that will provide more research money. Follow the money and you will find the reason. You'll find that when you talk to someone not motivated by money that you get more correct information.
The top hurricane scientist in the nation (don't recall his name) even said that global warming has no impact on hurricanes, that hurricanes have more and less intense cycles and we are entering a period of more intense storms.
The Sun itself has cycles of more and less energy output, some spanning 11 years. We've not been taking reliable information long enough to know if the Sun has even longer cycles than 11 years.
More - there are still temp records, both hot and cold, that were set 100 years ago. If global warming were actually being caused by emissions of man, all records would be from the last 20 years, not from the last 100. Incidentally, our recordkeeping isn't really reliable for further than about 100 years ago. The technology to make reliable, repeatable instruments just wasn't there.
And even more. How can the scientists have an accurate picture of global conditions when they don't even know what they are looking at? Just a week or so ago (can't find the link now) Yahoo news reported that scientists have just discovered a major undersea current that connects the oceans around Antarctica that is a major driver of oceanic power, and has a significant impact on our weather. How can they model the weather when they don't even know what the MAJOR impacting forces are? How many more are they missing?
It's not that I don't believe that man has an impact on the planet, I know we do. But, I don't think the people who study it know enough to make facts out of opinions, especially when they stand to either land or lose research dollars based on what they "discover".
This is just what I see as one who is not steeped in any dogma from one side or the other. I try to look at things clearly without preconceptions, which is why I am as I am. I don't believe everything I see or hear from other people, I don't accept or dismiss facts based on preconceptions, and I do alter my behavior when the facts show me to be wrong. If I weren't like this I'd still be building myself engines for large vehicles and dogging them out with no regard to the environment, and would just have a stronger air conditioning system tacked onto the side of the house, rather than having gotten rid of my gas guzzlers, started looking for more efficient transportation, begun planning for an off-grid, all renewable energy house, ect. Really it would be far cheaper for me to just stay as I was, but in my opinion going in the new direction I've chosen will result in a cleaner planet. I didn't reach these conclusions based on what some egghead said though, I reached them based on real things, like seeing the haze from pollution in Los Angeles and reports of mercury poisoning in fish causing certain lakes and rivers to ban fishing. I have no faith in some scientist that says the planet's temperature will raise 1 degree in the next 50 years and this will be the end of civilization, and the world can only be saved if my research project is fully funded.